By resisting pressure to crack down on "fraud," the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.Let's recap: Two years after Democrat Christine Gregoire "won" the governor's race by 129 votes, the still-climbing tally of known illegal votes caused by negligence (or worse) in the Democrat-controlled King County Elections office is approaching 500. Most of these were counted shortly before certification, when Gregoire appeared to be narrowly losing. King County actively concealed these illegal votes from the public and the contest trial.
Maybe innocent human error explains all of this. Maybe not. We'll never know without a thorough investigation, which McKay refused to conduct. Was McKay really concerned about "integrity of the election system"? Or maybe he didn't want to perturb his own relationships in the local Democrat-dominated power structure?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 16, 2007 11:07 PM | Email ThisThe only mistake Bush made appears to have been when he chose to be compromising with Democrats and appointed a Democrat to head the Seattle US Attorneys Office. In retrospect we now see that was a mistake, and while Bush is completely within his rights to correct his misstep, leave it to the Demorats and the media to portray his actions as wrong.
Clinton fired all 93. The Bush administration appears to have only considered it, but... chose not to follow Clinton's precedent. And for that Clinton's actions were ignored and Billary is calling for Alberto Gonzalez' resignation?
When are Republicans going to stop letting the Demorats and the media spew their lies and double-standards? I for one am tired of it.
I for one am wondering if Bush's calls to rebuild the party include fighting back for a change?
Posted by: MJC on March 16, 2007 11:45 PM"I fired those people. It was my decision, and my right. The buck stops here."
"While my people might have handled this a little better, we all know that the democrat tizzy over this issue is nothing more then their continuing effort to weaken this Administration in their efforts to discredit our war effort."
"Those people are fired, they are going to stay fired, and Alberto Gonzales will remain my Attorney General, regardless of the efforts of any democrat buffoons to make hay while the sun shines."
The president's failure to tell the d's to jam it is what's causing all of this... and he needs to put an end to it... now.
Posted by: Hinton on March 16, 2007 11:59 PMCouldn't have said it any better. Having lived on the frontlines of the 2004 recount debacle at MBOS and the "Gary Ridgeway" Building, and having read all the press coverage, I'm wondering why he wasn't canned sooner?
Posted by: Reporterward on March 17, 2007 12:40 AMThe firing is going to have a backlash on Rossi. The BIAW were very vocal about firing McKay, and many moderate Republicans are not going to be that all excited to see that BIAW and Washington Conservative Republicans got Karl Rove to fire McKay. There is a very good chance that the firing of McKay can be a campaign issue, and BIAW power could be humbled a bit. Rossi is going to be put on the spot about how much lobbying he did or his proxies to get McKay fired.
Also this is firings border on crimnal obstruction, not for the firing of John McKay, but Carol Lam. If Rove fired her because of her corruption cases against Republican Congressman and Defense Contractors, there can be a huge backlash of this for Republicans, especially in Western States.
Justice Department officials and Attorney General Gonzales have been lying under oath to Congress about the firings because they have been protecting the reason and motive for the firings.... Karl Rove wants to stymie problems for the Republicans in the upcoming 2008 election. The allegations are pretty serious, not because the US Attorneys were fired for politcal reasons, but they could had been fired to obstruct justice.
This shouldn't be about McKay's behavior and actions during the election. We went through the ordeal and trial about the recount of the Governor's race, besides Federal offices weren't involved to make his office more due dillgent about grand jury investigation. However to be fired two years after the recount, without any warning is very disturbing.
Posted by: aqua on March 17, 2007 03:46 AM
Clinton-93.
End of story.
Posted by: Hank on March 17, 2007 05:05 AM
IT'S ALL POLITICS, THEN AND NOW Here's a long-forgotten episode from the early days of the Clinton administration -- courtesy of a March 26, 1993 New York Times story [no link available]:
Any hope that the Clinton Administration would operate a Justice Department free of political taint -- or even the appearance of political taint -- grew dim yesterday when the White House confirmed that it would dismiss the U.S. Attorney investigating one of its chief Congressional allies.
When Attorney General Janet Reno first announced the blanket dismissal of about 70 United States Attorneys who are Bush Administration holdovers, her aides said she might exempt those needed to wrap up significant investigations. But...Those booted out would include U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens of the District of Columbia, who...is in the middle of an investigation of irregularities in the House of Representatives and a detailed financial auditing of one of the most powerful House Democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of Ways and Means.
The Wall Street Journal edit page this morning has the same story, but isn't it delicious to read it covered in the New York Times, now so eager to see a Clinton returned to the White House?
Gee, like Homeland Security, maybe we should unionize US Attorneys?????
Pass the bong.....
Posted by: Hank on March 17, 2007 05:27 AMI've read statements by a number of officials on why the firings occurred, but I don't recall any of those statements being "under oath." As Hinton noted above, the only answer that really matters is: "They serve at the pleasure of the President, and he decided it was time for them to go." If Administration officials are haled before Congress to "testify" about this, the President needs to tell Congress that the firings are an Executive prerogative that falls outside Congressional authority, and no one is going to show up.
Posted by: Patrick on March 17, 2007 07:12 AMGee Aqua do you think that the reason most people in the Seattle (i.e. liberalville) are upset with this is because they are Democrats. Aqua try getting out of Seattle every once in awhile and you will see a very different picture of how the rest of the state feels about McKay.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 17, 2007 08:17 AMThat prior Presidents brought in their own choices for U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their terms is more than just subtly different from what the current administration has engaged in and hopefully the electorate will recognize the difference.
In regard to the 2004 election, in which fewer than 500 questionable votes were found out of over two million cast in King County, there was no case for the U.S. attorney to make, and Secretary of State agreed. That both of these officials are Republican must be especially galling to the fringe of that party who hold onto the idea that being faithful to your party supercedes doing your job faithfully.
Posted by: Brian on March 17, 2007 08:22 AMAs far as handling the PR associated with it, sure, they fumbled the ball a bit on that. But it's a stretch to equate misstatements to the press as criminal acts.
Likewise, it is a real stretch to hang this one on Rossi. Rossi is a private citizen. He holds no public office. There is very little he can do as a private citizen to influence DOJ actions (as Stefan and others have found out). Rossi pursued his case in the state courts and did not invoke federal statues, although he very rightly could have (disenfranchisement of legitimate votes by illegal votes, which violated both due process and equal protection). The case presented in court focused on violations of state election laws. Did Rossi's team make any filings in federal court? I didn't think there were any, but I'm not sure.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 17, 2007 08:24 AMI would also hope McKay's investigation extends beyone the documents submitted at the Trial. Just because there was a trial about the Governor's Race does not mean legitimate concerns were not raised AFTER the Court Case. After all, KingKounty stonewalled many, many relevant documents until after the Trial.
I hope McKay will come clean about what he & his soldiers really truly investigated and share the documents.
One Down, one to go. Why would you care you are a Democrat? At least someone had the integrity to point out the obvious, that McKay was failing to do his job.
Posted by: Huh? on March 17, 2007 08:29 AMWhen you are listening to a lawyer, you must be very careful to ascertain the true meaning of their words. From the quotes I have read, McKay is trying to say he limited his investigation to what was presented AT THE TRIAL. Certainly mountains of evidence came forth subsequently. It appears McKay choose to ignore it. Perhaps a specific request for records should be made under the Freedom of Information Act for any investigation of information made available AFTER the post-Trial Documents.
Just because McKay says he "investigated" means absolutely nothing. What was the scope of the investigation? Who did he interview? What documents did McKay review & rely on in drawing his conclusion that there were no illegalities??
McKay wants to act like the victim. That's fine....but only after HIS actions are brought to light & scrutinized.
Too bad Sunshine Week is over.
We need Sunshine ad infinitum!
Get the "investigation" information out...
Otherwise we are being asked to TRUST John McKay. I'm certainly not ready to do that yet....are you????
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/307876_investigation17.html
Please note... they only reported this AFTER ACORN admitted wrongdoing by 3 of it's employees in an e-mail. The P-I could no longer EVADE the issue!!
What any credible newspaper should be doing is questioning these 3 and others in ACORN to see how widespread the knowledge and any cover-up attempts. This appears to have only just begun.
Let's put it this way.........
With the obvious lack of internal controls in King County Elections, it is highly unlikely that this is the first time ACORN or it's minions have pulled shenanigans. How far back does there fraudulent influence go???
Unfortuately, we do not have a credible newspaper to actually dig into this. They just wait and report...except for Keith Ervins perhaps. We'll see.
When the P-I is actually forced to report something like this...you know it's bad.
Read the article---
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/307876_investigation17.html
Hinton 3 dead on. substitute "whole R party & attitude" for "president" and you have the crux of nearly every problem for the R's.
like an ineffective captain of an unruly ship--the crew should not be in charge. here, the crew is any of the R's opponents. time to take charge & lead. not let your opponents do all the talking. quiet is a response too--interpreted as agreement.
back to the school playground bully lesson--dont stick up for yourself? too bad--your own fault. take your lumps.
''It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.''
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 17, 2007 09:18 AM" But these officials serve at the president's pleasure! He can fire any of them anytime for any reason. If he didn't like their hairstyle, he could bounce them. In fact, their four year terms had all expired and they were being carried on month-to-month anyway. >/B>"
" So what is the big deal? The Democrats (and some confused Republicans like Senator John Ensign of Nevada) say that Gonzales fired the prosecutors for political reasons - that they failed to be sufficiently aggressive in prosecuting certain cases such as voter fraud prosecutions. Well, so what? That's why we have political appointees in the US Attorney jobs. If we wanted nonpolitical figures, we would make them civil service positions. We have an appointed Attorney General and appointed US Attorneys precisely so that the president can impact their prosecutorial decisions to conform to his policy and program priorities. "
Dick Morris,
Dick Morris Reports,
VOL. 1, No. 3
March 16, 2007
IMNSHO, you're trying to find 'margin of error', and if that is larger than 'margin of victory', then you have a problem.
In the 2000-odd problem votes was a long list of votes that had to be cast illegally - but they failed the _specific_ wording of the then-applicable law. (No one could _prove_ who each individual illegally-cast ballot voted for. Let alone who exactly cast the illegal ballot. It is called a "Secret Ballot" for crying out loud!)
Posted by: Al on March 17, 2007 10:30 AMhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/
Apparently Scott Johnson finally got around to seeing the evidence....
Posted by: Cliff on March 17, 2007 01:46 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003622508_fraud17m.html
Posted by: PC on March 17, 2007 04:13 PMThere were many people in this state and around the country watching the trial, viewing the evidence that the BIAW, Stefan Sharkansky, and others produced - proving sufficient cause to warrant investigation. Many of those people waited for the Feds, the local Republican lawmakers and the national Republican lawmakers to investigate the evidence and the obvious fraud that was uncovered.. These same people were lulled to sleep back then due to inactivity from McKay and the Republican (local and national)lawmakers.
Now - EVERYONE is asking those questions again! "What DID really happen in the 2004 election?" "Why DIDN'T McKay get involved and investigate?" "How did McKay come to the conclusion that no investigation was warranted?"
McKay, the Dems and the other fired Attorneys are running scared now. Too many people are remembering the numerous cases of election fraud that occurred around the COUNTRY during the 2004 elections. McKay's sick assertion that he somehow preserved the integrity of our elections by not investigating the fraud in 2004 is nothing more than a desperate psycological attempt to lull the people back to sleep before their renewed interest in that election gets out of hand. He's not good at psy-ops..he should leave the spin to his liberal handlers.
I'm thinking both parties trying to unring that bell.....
Once you lay out your evidence of INTENT, that will get you past filing a charge. Now show enough evidence of INTENT that gets you past a King County judge and then 12 King County jurors.
There's a lot of evidence of folks being sloppy for sure. But I don't see proof of intent from the '04 debacle.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
Posted by: seanod100 on March 17, 2007 06:40 PMNo evidence, no investigation. Simple as that.
Posted by: seanod100 on March 17, 2007 07:01 PM#1 Guilty-KCRE
#2 Guilty-KCRE
You just have to look beyond the Wenachee Trail. Take off the Blue tinted Glasses, and you will see what others have seen. Better yet, look at the Evidence that the shark has presented, and give it to somone who WILL investigate it.
seanod100,
You don't play chess...do you?
Deliberate misconduct CAN be found in "purposeful neglect"....(But we wont go there yet...)
You open up 2 great cans of worms with your statement and questions....
1. Your assertions bring up the need to publicly reveal the preliminary investigation documents to determine if willful or purposeful neglect was committed.
2. If "neglect" was found - willful or not - it justifies the firing of McKay! (pssst..."neglect" is a terrible item to have on your resume'...and it kind of makes this whole liberal media blitz seem kind of stupid..)
So.....Yeah! Bring on the evidence of INTENT that McKay ignored (and thus neglected) the election fraud issue. (I like the way you think!)
Let's all see what he had in front of him when he decided not to pursue the investigation! It should all be public record now...
Posted by: Deborah on March 17, 2007 07:34 PMHowever, if some of the ACORN perpetrators or insiders with a conscience decide to go public with who knew what & when and had evidence...that's another story.
ACORN will never convince any reasonable person with an IQ over 40 that this was the first time they perpetrated irregularities.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 17, 2007 08:35 PM"These are all cases of ballots that were unlawfully accepted for tabulation by elections officials."
"unlawfully accepted" is a loooong way away from showing a deliberate, intentional act to defraud by an official.
Not enough to get a warrant. Not enough even to detain someone to question them...sorry. I know its frustrating, but proving a crime is no easy thing. Can you (or anyone) even name a suspect? Makes things even harder (ie,. impossible).
Posted by: seanod100 on March 17, 2007 09:01 PMseanod100,
Yeah...I checked out that link too. (I didn't provide it). The link just lists a small fraction of fraud evidence that was uncovered after the 2004 elections. Goodness! There was so much fraud perpetrated on so many levels during that election - it was mind boggling! From the pre-election illegal voter registrations, to the liberal-leaning Precinct supervisors taking home blank ballots without account, to the illegal acceptance of thousands of fake provisional ballots, to the inclusion of tens of thousands of mysteriously "found" ballots, to the mailbox residence voters, to the unlocked ballot storage cages, to the hundreds of double voters, to the purposeful delay by King county to register the daily count totals, to the deceased voters, not to mention the flakey King County canvassing board's cherry picking of ballots, ..etc...etc... Heck! We had residents/citizens of France, China and Canada voting in our elections that year!
Do your own search through Sound Politics archives....You just can't make this stuff up!
Posted by: Deborah on March 17, 2007 10:28 PMPosted by: seanod100 on March 17, 2007 10:37 PM
How about that Fred Thompson? Barack O'Bill al Hillary must be a sweat'n it.
His Paul Harvey sub time reminds me of Reagan's GE speeches. Another cowboy, boy is Europe and the dead media gonna hate it if he wins.
Posted by: Jericho on March 17, 2007 11:09 PMWho is the suspect? Well..it would be great if we were dealing with an individual..A single perpetrator..But this is more like an organized effort. Reminds me of the RICO laws..
All persons involved in this "outrageous neglegence" (as you put it) shared a common interest and motive. Their common interest was partisanship - membership in the Democratic party. Their motive was to win the elections for their party. Their crime was to illegally manipulate the election system in various ways in order to achieve their goal of winning the election for their party the Democrats.
If you look at the 2004 elections on a national scale, you will find election fraud investigations and prosecutions in several states. You will find less evidence presented than what we had in Washington state - yet guilty verdicts were secured! Why is this? Certainly we had evidence, we had an organization with a motive and means - we had a history of election fraud under the King County Executive administration! We even had witnesses who were willing to testify of the fraud!
We also had a US attorney who simply put his thumbs down to any investigation....and that was the difference between our state and those who actually investigated and prosecuted for election fraud.
Suspects? heh..This is not about a simple robbery..it's more like an organized crime family perpetrating an election fraud on millions of people in this state. How does one investigate organized crime?
Posted by: Deborah on March 18, 2007 01:18 AMStefan, I do not deny that mistakes were made in King County. Your work has certainly shown this. Kudos to you, and I appreciate your efforts to shine a light on a system that can be tightened.
But, where you err is in your conclusions. First off, you've not shown compelling evidence of "fraud" with intent. And 2nd, you reach the conclusion that given the number of errors found, it is probable that Rossi would have won the election.
BUT!!! You only reach this conclusion by shinging a focused beam of light on a single county. Your analysis consistently assumes that all other counties, indeed, predominantly Republican counties, if given the same examination, would not show errors. But, this is manifestly untrue, and demonstrably false. If you go back the the election itself, the rate by which votes changed in the election on each recount had King County nearing the middle of the pack of counties on a percentage basis.
And yet, you've not put any serious effort into scrutiny of these other counties. And so your analysis, while sufficient to stir the passion of partisans, will always be dismissed as inadequate.
Were there errors in King County? Of course. Are there errors in each of the additional 38 counties. Of course. But, pointing that out dethrones your pet issue.
If you want to discuss voter integrity with any of your own integrity, you'd excuse yourself from the partisan angle you've carved, and discuss the issue in a wholistic manner.
THAT would provide a real and lasting service to that which we should all be serving, democracy, rather than to the empty partisanship of party politics.
Posted by: Timothy on March 18, 2007 08:59 AMHowever, KingKounty is the only Kounty in Washington without an Elected Auditor. And the fact that they could not reconcile Votes & Voters, found ballots AFTER the initial Kount and all the other specific problems Stefan & others uncovered makes it prime for investigation. Also, the fact that KingKounty STONEWALLED relevant records requests for months. The Election Issues did not merely stop at the Rossi Election Contest...many issues & facts were uncovered after that. Plus, the recent ACORN voter registration debacle begs the question....is 2006 the 1st time they or their cohorts at Move-on.org attempted to or successfully influenced elections???
So Timothy, by all means, be my guest.....look at the other Counties in Washington all you like...and share your documented findings.
Something tells me you are all talk....
Do the work pal.
Share it.
We await your findings!
1. How does state law define:
a. a valid voter
b. a valid vote
c. fraud
d. negligence which does not amount to fraud
2. How does federal law define:
a. a valid voter
b. a valid vote
c. fraud
d. negligence which does not amount to fraud
3. For the 2004 election, were there voter fraud
cases prosecuted in other areas of the country?
a. Were these cases prosecuted in state courts?
1. Were state laws similar to Washington's
2. What was the basis of the prosecution
3. Were these prosecutions successful
b. Were these cases prosecuted using a federal
statute(s)?
1. What was the statute
2. What was the basis of the prosecution
3. Were these prosecutions successful?
I kinda followed the prosecution in Chelan, please correct me, but didn't the judge seem to infer that there was a hinderance in the Washington state legal standard for the proof requirements for fraud, which leads me to the next question, is it ever possible under Washington state law to prove fraud in the absence of a video showing some person actually manipulating ballots? Although, even with video, De Loren and Barry got off. If my sense is correct, do we need changes in state law?
My personal feeling is that the 2004 election stunk to high heaven. Is there some independent group or mechanism under either state law or the federal voting rights act to convene a post-mortem? Is it possible now for an aggrieved voter to allege federal voting rights violations and trigger an investigation?
I know that the parties may or may not want a post-mortem, but it is important for the remaining people who cast ballots to feel that their ballot counts for something. I don't have a dog in this hunt, in fact, many times I vote for my dog.
once again we on the right/who are RIGHT are playing the catch-up in a game with no there there, in a game the lefties define and on their field: "And the moral is that we on the Right need to put on our waders and gas masks, and go trudging through the left blogosphere's sewers more regularly than we do, keeping an eye on their mischief, so that we can demolish these kinds of attack memes before they successfully root themselves in the public dialogue."
Is anyone, beside me, sick of it all?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 18, 2007 10:12 AMAqua: "Administration officials have been lying under oath about the firings."
I've read statements by a number of officials on why the firings occurred, but I don't recall any of those statements being "under oath." As Hinton noted above, the only answer that really matters is: "They serve at the pleasure of the President, and he decided it was time for them to go." If Administration officials are haled before Congress to "testify" about this, the President needs to tell Congress that the firings are an Executive prerogative that falls outside Congressional authority, and no one is going to show up.
Posted by Patrick at March 17, 2007 07:12 AM
AG Gonzales has been sworn in by the Senate Judicary committee since his first hearing with the committee on January 18, 2007, Assistant AG McNulty has been sworn in when describing that the firings have been based on performance reviews.
If the President's argument to withhold details about the firings are based on executive priviledge, it probably won't much water, because Gonzales and the politcal appointees have an obligation to Congress for information as the Administration. The only thing that Bush is on stronger ground is any conversations with Rove or Miers can be protected under executive priviledge.
The half the problem in this fiasco is that the Administration officals blatantly lied to Congress about the firings. The emails release showed some sort of cover to be used to either delayed the Senate Inquiries or keep them at bay. Kyle Sampson is hardly the mastermind in this, and he wasn't the one testifying in front of Congress. The Dems not only have subpoena power, but the Administration so pissed off the fired US Attorneys that they broke allegiance and testify about how the firings took place. The Administration officials also lied about not using the provision in the revise Patriot Act to appoint Interim Attorney Generals as permanent.
If the Bush Administration officials either were upfront about the reason they fired the US Attorney Generals or explain why this happened, they wouldn't be in half the trouble they are in.
The McKay firing has pissed off many in the Seattle Legal and Law Enforcement community, and there has been plenty of grumbling since the firings about the idiocy of the McKay firing.
Posted by: aqua on March 18, 2007 10:27 AMThe voter issue is important because of a couple of points:
1. Once a locale has systematic corruption, it is difficult to root out, if ever. There are some very real consequences for the disadvantaged, Gary, Newark, and East St. Louis come to mind.
2. In theory and often in practice, voting is the
basis for the compact between government and its citizens.
Corruption, needs to be addressed, no matter whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral. I don't like personal attacks and would prefer to deal with the issues, personalities aside. But, we are now where it is what it is.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2007 10:27 AMlots of Dems and KCRE trying to swith to "intent" arguments
don't take the bait; sloppyg bookkeeping was the goal of Sims, Logan and Dem establishment. You'll never find specific "gotcha" but rather pattern of wanting any old vote to count, which then benefits dems and indeed their targeted allies, the Acorn bunch
Let's talk about something just as hilarious, public education. Oh, wait, that's not funny either.
Seriously, Richard Pope or others. A couple of questions:
1. Does the Voting Rights Act apply to the situation in King County?
2. What is the statute of limitations for alleging a violation of the Act?
3. What starts a Voter's Right Act inquiry. Could an aggrieved voter using Stefan's data trigger an inquiry?
Now site magicians, let's get some stuff up on schools.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2007 07:15 PMThis will go nation wide in 08 if not arrested.
Posted by: Jericho on March 18, 2007 08:47 PMWashington Times, March 26, 1993
"Senate and House Republicans yesterday blasted the White House and the Justice Department for giving pink slips to virtually all 93 U.S. attorneys, a move Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole called the "March massacre" . . . .
"Nearly 20 years ago, when Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Eliot Richardson were fired from their posts, the press railed about the so-called 'Saturday-night massacre,' " said Mr. Dole.
Texas Rep. Dick Armey, chairman of the House Republican Conference, and about a dozen freshmen colleagues accused Attorney General Janet Reno of bowing to White House political pressure.
"During her confirmation, Miss Reno assured senators that she would 'keep politics out of what I do,' " Mr. Armey said.
"Less than a month later, she fired all the U.S. attorneys in a very political fashion . . . one that reeks of politics, undermining the public's confidence in the Department of Justice.""
and:
UPI, March 26, 1993
"Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a "severe blow to the administration of justice in this country."
He said, "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently.""
Posted by: Cat on March 19, 2007 08:25 AMOh Pleeeeze, whatever President of the moment has the right to kick to the curb anyone they want to.
Both parties play these chess games which is why there are so many indies and non-voters. If you think a White House under Hillary and "vicious" Sid Bluementhal is going to be any less political, then I have some land in Florida with David et al Mathews as the bonus for you. Whoever the next President is will appoint US Attorneys who have sufficiently played the game to get the appointment. When you get to that level, playing the game means sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. At will employment is just that. This phony piety coming from the beltway crowd and their local sycophants makes one want to barf.